In Part One of this book, it is my intention to cover what I would like
to call the fundamentals of Buddhism, that is, the basic teaching of Buddhism. This survey
will include the Life of the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path,
karma, rebirth, interdependent origination, the three universal characteristics, and the
teaching of the five aggregates. Before the actual treatment of these basic topics, I
would like to deal first with the notion of Buddhism in perspective, and that a modern
perspective. There are many ways in which people of different times and different cultures
have approached Buddhism, but I believe it may be especially useful to contrast the modern
attitude toward Buddhism with the traditional attitude toward it. This kind of comparative
consideration may prove useful because understanding how people of different times and
cultures view a particular phenomenon can begin to show us the limitations of our own
particular perspective.

Buddhism has awakened considerable interest in the West, and there are
many persons who enjoy positions of some note in western society who are either Buddhist
or sympathetic to Buddhism. This is perhaps most clearly exemplified by the remark said to
have been made by the great twentieth-century scientist Albert Einstein, that although he
was not a religious man, if he had been one, he would have been a Buddhist. At first
glance it may seem surprising that such a remark should be made by one regarded as the
father of modern western science. However, if we look more closely at contemporary western
society, we find a Buddhist astrophysicist in France, a psychologist who is a Buddhist in
Italy, and a leading English judge who is one, too. Indeed, it would not be too much to
say that Buddhism is fast becoming the favorite choice of westerners who belong to the
elite in the areas of science and art. I will look at the reasons for this in a moment,
but before doing so, I would like to compare this situation with that found in
traditionally Buddhist communities and countries. Take, for example, the situation among
the traditionally Buddhist communities of Southeast and East Asia.

In Europe and America, Buddhism is generally believed to be more than
usually advanced in its thought, rigorously rational, and sophisticated. I will not
attempt to conceal the fact that it came as quite a shock to me when I first went to
Southeast Asia and found that many people there view Buddhism as old-fashioned,
irrational, and bound up with outdated superstitions. This is one of two prevalent
attitudes that obstruct the appreciation of Buddhism in such traditionally Buddhist
communities. The other popular misconception that afflicts Buddhism in such communities is
the notion that it is so deep and so abstract that no one can ever possibly understand it.
Perhaps it is the intellectual arrogance of the West that has saved Europeans and
Americans from this aberration. In short, when I look at the common attitudes prevailing
in the West and in the East toward Buddhism, I find a radical contrast. This is why I want
to begin our examination of Buddhism with a consideration of alternative perspectives.

In the West, Buddhism has a certain image in the popular mind, while in
traditionally Buddhist communities, Buddhism has an altogether different image. The
dismissive attitude that prevails in such communities has to be overcome before people
there can really begin to appreciate the teaching of the Buddha. In this way people
everywhere can acquire the balanced perspective needed to approach Buddhism without
prejudice and preconceived ideas. Consequently, this introduction to Buddhism is intended
not only for people in the West but also for people in traditionally Buddhist communities
who may have become estranged from the religion for a variety of social and cultural
reasons. It should also be said, of course, that the image of Buddhism common in the West
may be limited in its own way, but I hope that, in the chapters that follow, a clear and
objective presentation of the traditions of Buddhism will, finally, emerge.

For the moment, to turn again to the western attitude toward Buddhism,
one of the first features we can appreciate about it is the fact that it is not
culture-bound, that is to say, it is not restricted to any particular society, race, or
ethnic group. There are some religions that are culture-bound: Judaism is one example;
Hinduism is another. However, Buddhism is not similarly constrained. That is why,
historically, we have had the development of Indian Buddhism, Sri Lankan Buddhism, Thai
Buddhism, Burmese Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and so
on. In the near future, I have no doubt that we will see the emergence of English
Buddhism, French Buddhism, Italian Buddhism, American Buddhism, and the like. All this is
possible because Buddhism is not culture-bound. It moves very easily from one cultural
context to another because its emphasis is on internal practice rather than external forms
of religious behavior. Its emphasis is on the way each practitioner develops his or her
own mind, not on how he dresses, the kind of food he eats, the way he wears his hair, and
so forth. The second point to which I would like to draw your attention is the pragmatism
of Buddhism, that is to say, its practical orientation. Buddhism addresses a practical
problem. It is not interested in academic questions and metaphysical theories. The
Buddhist approach is to identify a real problem and deal with it in a practical way.
Again, this attitude is very much in keeping with western conceptions of utilitarianism
and scientific problem-solving. Very briefly, we might say the Buddhist approach is
encapsulated in the maxim, "If it works, use it." This attitude is an integral
part of modern western political, economic, and scientific practice.

The pragmatic approach of Buddhism is expressed very clearly in the
Chulamalunkya Sutta, a discourse in which the Buddha himself made use of the parable of a
wounded man. In the story, a man wounded by an arrow wishes to know who shot the arrow,
the direction from which it came, whether the arrowhead is bone or iron, and whether the
shaft is one kind of wood or another before he will let the arrow be removed. His attitude
is likened to that of people who want to know about the origin of the universe--whether it
is eternal or not, finite in space or not, and so on--before they will undertake to
practice a religion. Such people will die before they ever have the answers to all their
irrelevant questions, just as the man in the parable will die before he has all the
answers he seeks about the origin and nature of the arrow.

This story illustrates the practical orientation of the Buddha and
Buddhism. It has a great deal to tell us about the whole question of priorities and
scientific problem-solving. We will not make much progress in the development of wisdom if
we ask the wrong questions. It is essentially a matter of priorities. The first priority
for all of us is the reduction and eventual elimination of suffering. The Buddha
recognized this and consequently pointed out the futility of speculating about the origin
and nature of the universe--precisely because, like the man in the parable, we have all
been struck down by an arrow, the arrow of suffering.

Thus we must ask questions that are directly related to the removal of
the arrow of suffering and not waste our precious time on irrelevant inquiries. This idea
can be expressed in a very simple way. We can all see that, in our daily lives, we
constantly make choices based on priorities. For instance, suppose you are cooking and
decide that, while the pot of beans is boiling, you will dust the furniture or sweep the
floor. But as you are occupied with this task, you suddenly smell something burning: you
then have to choose whether to carry on with your dusting or sweeping or go immediately to
the stove to turn down the flame and thereby save your dinner. In the same way, if we want
to make progress toward wisdom, we must clearly recognize our priorities. This point is
made very nicely in the parable of the wounded man.

The third point I would like to discuss is the teaching on the
importance of verifying the truth by means of recourse to personal experience. This point
is made very clearly by the Buddha in his advice to the Kalamas contained in the
Kesaputtiya Sutta.. The Kalamas were a community of town-dwellers in some ways very much
like people in the contemporary world, who are exposed to so many different and often
conflicting versions of the truth. They went to the Buddha and asked him how they were to
judge the truth of the conflicting claims made by various religious teachers. The Buddha
told them not to accept anything merely on the basis of purported authority, nor to accept
anything simply because it is contained in sacred text, nor to accept anything on the
basis of common opinion, nor because it seems reasonable, nor yet again because of
reverence for a teacher. He even went so far as to advise them not to accept his own
teaching without verification of its truth through personal experience.

The Buddha asked the Kalamas to test whatever they might hear in the
light of their own experience. Only when they came to know for themselves that such and
such things were harmful should they seek to abandon them. Alternatively, when they came
to know for themselves that certain things were beneficial--that they were conducive to
peace and tranquillity--then they should seek to cultivate them. We, too, must judge the
truth of whatever we are taught in the light of our own personal experience.

In his advice to the Kalamas, I think we can see clearly the Buddha's
doctrine of self-reliance in the acquisition of knowledge. We ought to use our own minds
as a kind of private test tube. We can all see for ourselves that when greed and anger are
present in our minds, they lead to disquiet and suffering. By the same token, we can all
see for ourselves that when greed and anger are absent from our minds, it results in
tranquillity and happiness. This is a very simple personal experiment that we can all do.
The verification of the validity of teachings in the light of one's own personal
experience is very important, because what the Buddha taught will only be effective, will
only really succeed in changing our lives, if we can carry out this kind of personal
experiment and make the teaching our very own. Only when we can verify the truth of the
Buddha's teachings by recourse to our own experience can we be sure that we are making
progress on the path to the elimination of suffering.

Again we can see a striking similarity between the approach of the
Buddha and the scientific approach to the quest for knowledge. The Buddha stressed the
importance of objective observation, which is in a sense the key to the Buddhist method
for acquiring knowledge. It is objective observation that yields the first of the Four
Noble Truths, the truth of suffering; it is observation that verifies one's progress along
the steps of the path; and it is observation that confirms the realization of the complete
cessation of suffering. Therefore, at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of the
Buddhist path to liberation, the role of observation is essential.

This is not very different from the role played by objective
observation in the scientific tradition of the West. The scientific tradition teaches that
when we observe a problem, we must first formulate a general theory and then a specific
hypothesis. The same procedure obtains in the case of the Four Noble Truths. Here the
general theory is that all things must have a cause, while the specific hypothesis is that
the cause of suffering is craving and ignorance (the second noble truth). This hypothesis
can be verified by the experimental method embodied in the steps of the Eightfold Path. By
means of the steps of this path, the soundness of the second noble truth can be
established. In addition, the reality of the third noble truth, the cessation of
suffering, can be verified, because through cultivating the path craving and ignorance are
eliminated and the supreme happiness of nirvana is attained. This experimental process is
repeatable, in keeping with sound scientific practice: not only did the Buddha attain the
end of suffering but so, too, we can see historically, did all those who followed his path
to the end.

Therefore, when we look closely at the teaching of the Buddha, we find
that his approach has a great deal in common with the approach of science. This has
naturally aroused a tremendous amount of interest in Buddhism among modern-minded people.
We can begin to see why Einstein was able to make a remark like the one credited to him.
The general agreement between the Buddhist approach and that of modern science will become
even clearer when we examine the Buddhist attitude toward the facts of experience, which,
like that of science, is analytical.

According to the teaching of the Buddha, the data of experience are
divided into two components, the objective component and the subjective component; in
other words, the things we perceive around us, and we ourselves, the subjective
perceivers. Buddhism has long been noted for its analytical approach in the fields of
philosophy and psychology. What is meant by this is that the Buddha analyzed the facts of
experience into various components or factors. The most basic of these components are the
five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. These five
aggregates can be viewed in terms of the eighteen elements, and there is also an even more
elaborate analysis in terms of the seventy-two factors.

The procedure adopted here is analytical inasmuch as it breaks up the
data of experience into their various components. The Buddha was not satisfied with a
vague conception of experience in general; rather, he analyzed experience, probed its
essence, and broke it down into its components, just as we might break down the phenomenon
of a chariot into the wheels, the axle, the body, and so forth. The object of this
exercise is to gain a better idea of how these phenomena function. When, for instance, we
see a flower, hear a piece of music, or meet with a friend, all these experiences arise as
the direct result of a combination of component elements.

This has been called the analytical approach of Buddhism, and again, it
is not at all strange to modern science and philosophy. We find the analytical approach
very widely applied in science, while in philosophy the analytical approach has
characterized the thought of many European philosophers, perhaps most clearly and recently
that of Bertrand Russell. Studies have been done comparing his analytical philosophy quite
successfully with that of early Buddhism. Consequently, in western science and philosophy,
we find a very close parallel to the analytical method as it is taught within the Buddhist
tradition. This is one of the familiar and recognizable features that has attracted modern
western intellectuals and academics to Buddhist philosophy. Modern psychologists, too, are
now deeply interested in the Buddhist analysis of the various factors of consciousness:
feeling, perception, and volition. They are turning in increasing numbers to the ancient
teaching of the Buddha to gain greater insight into their own discipline.

This growing interest in the teaching of the Buddha--provoked by these
many areas of affinity between Buddhist thought and the major currents of modern science,
philosophy, and psychology--has reached its apex in the twentieth century with the
startling suggestions advanced by relativity theory and quantum physics, which represent
the very latest developments in experimental and theoretical science. Here, again, it is
evident not only that the Buddha anticipated the primary methods of science (namely,
observation, experimentation, and analysis), but also that, in some of their most specific
conclusions about the nature of man and the universe, Buddhism and science actually
coincide.For example, the importance of consciousness in the formation of experience, so
long ignored in the West, has now been recognized. Not long ago, a noted physicist
remarked that the universe may really be just something like a great thought. This very
clearly follows in the footsteps of the teaching of the Buddha expressed in the
Dhammapada, where it is said that the mind is the maker of all things. Likewise, the
relativity of matter and energy--the recognition that there is no radical division between
mind and matter--has now been confirmed by the most recent developments in modern
experimental science.

The consequence of all this is that, in the context of contemporary
western culture, scientists, psychologists, and philosophers have found in Buddhism a
tradition in harmony with some of the most basic principles of western thought. In
addition, they find Buddhism particularly interesting because, although the principal
methods and conclusions of the western scientific tradition often closely resemble those
of Buddhism, western science has thus far suggested no practical way of achieving an inner
transformation, whereas in Buddhism such a way is clearly indicated. While science has
taught us to build better cities, expressways, factories, and farms, it has not taught us
to build better people. Therefore people in the contemporary world are turning to
Buddhism, an ancient philosophy that has many features in common with the western
scientific tradition but that goes beyond the materialism of the West, beyond the limits
of practical science as we have known it thus far.